Would you play Call of Duty Future Warfare?
- Thread starter Zeema
- Start date
I knew I wasn't the only one thinking about CoD: Future warfare. But how far into the future are we talking about? 25 years? 50? 100? I'd say make one of the near future, then make one in the distant future. Hell, even a Sci-Fi game (within the realms of... "reality") would be amazing, I think.
Imagine it my friends: Call of Duty has a baby with Battlefield 2142. That baby could be the supreme ruler of us all. And what a wonderous ruler it would be.
Personally, I think that if Call Of Duty wants to survive, they need to come up with more unique ideas.
ex. Nuclear Civil War Between Republicans and Democrats, time traveling Nazis that have teamed up with, i dunno Vlad the Impaler. More survival types other than zombies (like Vampire survival, Alien Terrorist survival, anything goes.)
But of course, because Activision is Activision, there just going to milk Call Of Duty dry.
Just like Guitar Hero....
and WoW.....
and Tony Hawk....
ex. Nuclear Civil War Between Republicans and Democrats, time traveling Nazis that have teamed up with, i dunno Vlad the Impaler. More survival types other than zombies (like Vampire survival, Alien Terrorist survival, anything goes.)
But of course, because Activision is Activision, there just going to milk Call Of Duty dry.
Just like Guitar Hero....
and WoW.....
and Tony Hawk....
I would rather see the FPS genre transcend itself farther than see it simply choose a new setting.emeraldrafael said:
Infinity Ward? Good story? PFFFT. Please. Whether it's Treyarch or Infinity Ward, the "stories" in CoD games have always been sub-par to mediocre.
As for the alternate game, maaaybe Battlefield (assuming you're primarily talking about multiplayer), but they're really two different multiplayer games. Battlefield is a bit more cerebral/team-oriented (for an FPS, of course) than CoD has been.
I certainly wouldn't buy a "Future Warfare," but I would certainly have no problems playing it (say, at a friend's house, or using a friend's copy).
Well my my, dont you look nice on that high horse called hypocrisy you're on there.weedalin said:
I've played battlefield. Its not significantly better or a pantheon of gaming in the least. Would I make it my main multiplayer game? no. I like to play in old game serves cause the noobs have moved on and the dicks want to play something new, so my friends and I can populate a server and have good matches. But then again, we're also CoD people at heart, though I would BUY and TRY a new shooter.
Besides, the games in different settings would transcend, since its a different theatre with different mechanics. Think you'd get CoD + Ace Commander + sub simulator. That would easily transcend the genre's boundaries.
And as far as shooters go, CoD4:MW1 had a good story mode. People just over look it because CoD:MW2 tried to replicate it and do the killing a character that you cant stop for drama way too much.
Yes, but they all just focus on Stalingrad, they do it half-heartedly, and half of the time it seems like it's just a video game version of that Jude Law movie. Moscow and Kursk, for the most part, are nowhere to be seen. It's all dreadfully cliched, and none of it really seems to capture the brutality, desperation, and sheer scale of that conflict. Furthermore, they all make you play a Russian. Come on now, game developers... if you're going to put us in the army of one brutal, terrible totalitarian regime, what's the big deal about putting us in another? That would make the whole thing even more epic, seeing it from both sides. I have yet to see a shooter that does the Eastern Front justice.Ordinaryundone said:
I disagree. WaW went there, but it was disappointing. It felt like the same old CoD, they just replaced cafes with palm trees, Europeans with Asians, and threw in some guys who try to stab you. The pacing is all wrong, I think. There should be more suspense, more tension... long pauses in the action while you expect an ambush around every corner. When you finally do fight, it should feel much more brutal and in-your-face. You should have to fight your ass off for every step you take. Alternatively, you could go the other way and focus on the Marine Raiders... I mean REALLY focus on them, not just give them a little acknowledgement like in WaW.Ordinaryundone said:
For that matter, even more games set in Europe could be fun if they were less about the front lines, and more about the OSS and the Maquis.
That would make it a poor strategy game, but shooters aren't focused on the strategic element of a war. There was more than enough serious fighting to make games about that war. It was decisive, but that's not the same thing as one-sided. One-sided fights are easy. Decisive ones may be easy, but they may also be hard-fought victories.Ordinaryundone said:
You'd have to play around with the truth a bit, but the idea has potential.Ordinaryundone said:
Being a big expanded universe fan,I read the Ghost backstoy book(from mw2). Thay can make a whole game around his exploits and it seems relativly simple to make.
On the subject of the various Let's Send CoD To Asia arguments, I think it would be an interesting move, with one massive caveat.
The really interesting stuff (the various sackings of Singapore, the wandering around the jungles of Burma knocking off Japanese soldiers on pushbikes with a knife, a couple of hand grenades and a pistol, that sort of thing) just won't sell in America, because 1) it doesn't fit into the conventional FPS mould, although that last part would work brilliantly as a sort of Hitman-style assassination game (think Haze but with the second half done properly), and 2) because it doesn't directly involve Americans, it being the British Empire's outposts in the Far East fighting off the Japanese. And if it won't sell well in America then no bugger'll do it, as we are all aware.
As for a futuristic setting, again it could work but the Americans won't buy into it - partly because of the aforementioned comparisons to Crysis and Halo and the rest of the soft-as-butter scifi shooty crapwave that threatens to drown the genre. If they want to make it interesting they only have two realistic options.
Choice A is to go for near-future battling insurgencies in Africa, the Middle East and possibly even the bits of the old Soviet Union that are really totally separate from Russia, really they are, honest. This would work as a sort of Mass Effect-style thing but with Afghan tribesmen and African warlords replacing all the starships and glowy aliens. An interesting idea would be to rip off elements of Joe Haldeman's Forever Peace, with the Americans piloting remotely-operated near-indestructible drones and trying not to go insane from the pain and mental anguish that doing such a thing would cause for the combatant, and brokering peace with the various factions by bribing them with a remotely stable food supply. Perhaps at low 'health' the player experiences the onset of madness, like wonky vision, a slow removal of control, lowered accuracy, altered perceptions of reality, that sort of thing.
Choice B is harder to implement and bloody difficult to sell without resorting to the "It's a new CoD, buy it anyway, sheeple" school of marketing. This route takes one into the far, far future, but the twist is it's hard SF. This means: few aliens, and those are likely of the Starfish Alien variety. No FTL. No Zero Point Energy. Very little in the way of physical battles, and very little in the way of battles in general, but when war comes, it comes BIG. A weird, unknowable alien threat comes roaring into the outskirts of known space and proceeds to piss on humanity's breakfast cereal. New theatres are opened up: boarding actions, cyberwarfare (which might get a bit meta), space combat, infiltration, you name it. For a little further reading, check out Orion's Arm, which would be a very interesting setting to nick stuff from.
All in all, the idea has potential, but only as an artistic work rather than an outright money spinner.
Whether this is a good or bad thing is entirely at your discretion.
The really interesting stuff (the various sackings of Singapore, the wandering around the jungles of Burma knocking off Japanese soldiers on pushbikes with a knife, a couple of hand grenades and a pistol, that sort of thing) just won't sell in America, because 1) it doesn't fit into the conventional FPS mould, although that last part would work brilliantly as a sort of Hitman-style assassination game (think Haze but with the second half done properly), and 2) because it doesn't directly involve Americans, it being the British Empire's outposts in the Far East fighting off the Japanese. And if it won't sell well in America then no bugger'll do it, as we are all aware.
As for a futuristic setting, again it could work but the Americans won't buy into it - partly because of the aforementioned comparisons to Crysis and Halo and the rest of the soft-as-butter scifi shooty crapwave that threatens to drown the genre. If they want to make it interesting they only have two realistic options.
Choice A is to go for near-future battling insurgencies in Africa, the Middle East and possibly even the bits of the old Soviet Union that are really totally separate from Russia, really they are, honest. This would work as a sort of Mass Effect-style thing but with Afghan tribesmen and African warlords replacing all the starships and glowy aliens. An interesting idea would be to rip off elements of Joe Haldeman's Forever Peace, with the Americans piloting remotely-operated near-indestructible drones and trying not to go insane from the pain and mental anguish that doing such a thing would cause for the combatant, and brokering peace with the various factions by bribing them with a remotely stable food supply. Perhaps at low 'health' the player experiences the onset of madness, like wonky vision, a slow removal of control, lowered accuracy, altered perceptions of reality, that sort of thing.
Choice B is harder to implement and bloody difficult to sell without resorting to the "It's a new CoD, buy it anyway, sheeple" school of marketing. This route takes one into the far, far future, but the twist is it's hard SF. This means: few aliens, and those are likely of the Starfish Alien variety. No FTL. No Zero Point Energy. Very little in the way of physical battles, and very little in the way of battles in general, but when war comes, it comes BIG. A weird, unknowable alien threat comes roaring into the outskirts of known space and proceeds to piss on humanity's breakfast cereal. New theatres are opened up: boarding actions, cyberwarfare (which might get a bit meta), space combat, infiltration, you name it. For a little further reading, check out Orion's Arm, which would be a very interesting setting to nick stuff from.
All in all, the idea has potential, but only as an artistic work rather than an outright money spinner.
Whether this is a good or bad thing is entirely at your discretion.
I would, but it's been done.
Homefront is close future
Battlefield 2142 is somewhat far future.
Halo is far future
Crysis is very far future
Homefront is close future
Battlefield 2142 is somewhat far future.
Halo is far future
Crysis is very far future